Where Vapers Go Wrong

It has taken quite a while for the WHO to direct its minion, the EU (and, therefrom, the EU’s minions) how best to deal with e-cigs. It must have taken quite a few sessions in ‘the WHO committee’ to decide. We can see now how the thinking went:

“About these -cig things, how about changing the emphasis from tobacco smoke to nicotine?”

“Great idea! Let’s do it!”

“Do you think that we could sneak the control of nicotine into a tobacco directive in the EU?”

“Um…. If the wording is right, I see no difficulty. The trick would be to shout a lot about the evils of nicotine in advance – like, how dangerous nicotine is to children. We could then demand very stringent controls, but be prepared to ‘negotiate’ some relaxation. That should work. The result will be that we will succeed in getting e-cigs defined as tobacco products by default”

“Well, Yes, but why should Governments actually agree at all with the inclusion of e-cigs into the directive? There is no smoke”

“I see what you mean……… How about creating an atmosphere where everyone believes that people use e-cigs for no other reason than ‘SMOKING’ cessation? Thus, e-cigs and SMOKE are linked together. What we can do is go on and on about how ineffective e-cigs are as a tool to stop smoking. Vapers will have to defend themselves by concentrating on how e-cigs have actually helped them to stop smoking. They will have no alternative. Pleasure and cost will not figure”

“Great! Set the wheels in motion. Pass the message down”

======

What can vapers do to avoid this trap? It really is difficult because the Zealots are directing the debate into ‘smoking cessation’. Is there an answer? There could be:

“I smoked a lot for thirty years. I was always conscious that there may be ill-effects health-wise, but I really enjoyed smoking. Also, the cost of tobacco was becoming horrendous. I was really thankful when a friend told me about e-cigs. The shop that I bought my e-cig from was really helpful. The staff asked me how much I smoked (thirty a day) and suggested that I needed a higher nicotine content to start with. They also asked me what flavours I like – vanilla ice cream, chocolate, etc. It took me a while to change over mostly from my tobacco cigs to my e-cig. I have arrived at a situation now where I am very pleased. I enjoy my ecig most of the time, especially the chocolate-flavoured juice, but I still enjoy the odd packet of fags. Funnily enough, it is at home where I use my e-cig most. I generally buy fags only when I intend to go to the pub. It is nice to pop outside for a fag (although I would rather not have to!) with my mates. I don’t like scrounging. I don’t find it difficult to save the unused portion of the packet of fags until next time I go to the pub. I suppose that it is a question of habit! Generally speaking, I get as much pleasure from my e-cig as I got from my tobacco cigs, and the cost is massively cheaper!”

———-

I wonder if vapers could get it into their heads that they MUST re-direct the debate from ‘cessation’ to ‘pleasure’? They MUST stop saying how much their health has improved after six months of vaping. (That is impossible since, according to tobacco control, the damage of smoking for thirty years will take a decade to correct itself – if you are lucky) Any such benefits are psychosomatic. Oddly, the psychosomatic benefits are actually real benefits! They originate, not only from the effects of nicotine as a relaxing influence on mind and body, but also from contentment induced by the money saved by not buying Government tobacco. Make no mistake – the Government’s profits from tobacco (about 90% of the cost of a packet in terms of profit) render them all but outright owners, despite the fact that tobacco companies do all the work.

It really is very, very simple. Whenever vapers comment on newspaper articles and such, all they need to do is ignore cessation of tobacco smoking and speak about the pleasure they derive from their e-cigs, and the money that they are saving. SAY NOTHING ABOUT IMPROVED HEALTH! Take the matter out of the hands of Health Zealots.

“I am really pleased that I moved over to MY e-cig. MY preferred flavour is ‘Farley’s Rusks’. It is a taste which I remember from when I was a tiny child [the children!!!]. It is a delicious taste. I have saved loads-a-money over the last twelve months. I have already been on holiday twice this year. It has been a revelation!”

———

Further, vapers must announce loud and clear that they will DISOBEY! They will source their juices from wherever the like. And, most of all, they WILL NOT be defeated. Only in that way will they retain the ‘moral high ground’.

22 Responses to “Where Vapers Go Wrong”

In the continued war on e-cigarettes, we hear about the “potential dangers” of e-cigarette vapor and the “unknown public health risks.”

First, I find it absolutely absurd that we’re attempting to pass laws based on unknowns, but what makes it even more absurd is the fact that there’s very little that isn’t known about e-cigarette vapor at this point. The primary ingredient of concern to those who wish to see e-cigarettes banned is the propylene glycol vapor, which has been studied for over 70 years.

I recently came across a document titled, “Reregistration Eligibility Decision For Propylene Glycol and Dipropylene Glycol“, which was created by the United State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Catchy title. I was intrigued.

This quote caught my eye:

Propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol were first registered in 1950 and 1959, respectively, by the FDA for use in hospitals as air disinfectants. (page 4, paragraph 1).

In a previous post, I had shared the summary of research that had been done in 1942 by Dr. Robertson regarding the antibacterial properties of vaporized propylene glycol, but I had never heard that the FDA wound up approving it for the purpose of an air disinfectant in hospitals.

Read the directions included with the automatic dispenser for proper installation of unit and refill. Remove cap from aerosol can and place in a sequential aerosol dispenser which automatically releases a metered amount every 15 minutes. One unit should treat 6000 ft of closed air space… For regular, non-metered applications, spray room until a light fog forms. To sanitize the air, spray 6 to 8 seconds in an average size room (10’x10′). (page 6, paragraph 6)

A common argument used to support the public usage ban is that, “Minnesotans have become accustomed to the standard of clean indoor air.” However, according to the EPA and FDA, so long as there’s a “light fog” of propylene glycol vapor in the air, the air is actually more clean than the standard that Minnesotans have become accustomed to.

General Toxicity Observations

Upon reviewing the available toxicity information, the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol. This conclusion is based on the results of toxicity testing of propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol in which dose levels near or above testing limits (as established in the OPPTS 870 series harmonized test guidelines) were employed in experimental animal studies and no significant toxicity observed.

Carcinogenicity Classification

A review of the available data has shown propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol to be negative for carcinogenicity in studies conducted up to the testing limit doses established by the Agency; therefore, no further carcinogenic analysis is required. (page 10, paragraphs 1 & 2)

Ready for the bombshell? I probably should have put this at the top, as it could have made this post a lot shorter, but I figured the information above was important, too…

2. FQPA Safety Factor

The FQPA Safety Factor (as required by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996) is intended to provide an additional 10-fold safety factor (10X), to protect for special sensitivity in infants and children to specific pesticide residues in food, drinking water, or residential exposures, or to compensate for an incomplete database. The FQPA Safety Factor has been removed (i.e., reduced to 1X) for propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol because there is no pre- or post-natal evidence for increased susceptibility following exposure. Further, the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol based on the low toxicity observed in studies conducted near or above testing limit doses as established in the OPPTS 870 series harmonized test guidelines. Therefore, quantitative risk assessment was not conducted for propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol.

In a paper published in the American Journal of Public Health by Dr. Robertson in April of 1946, Robertson cites a study published in the Edinburgh Medical Journal, which was conducted in 1944:

The report of the 3 years’ study of the clinical application of the disinfection of air by glycol vapors in a children’s convalescent home showed a marked reduction in the number of acute respiratory infections occurring in the wards treated with both propylene and triethylene glycols. Whereas in the control wards, 132 infections occured during the course of three winters, there were only 13 such instances in the glycol wards during the same period. The fact that children were, for the most part, chronically confined to bed presented an unusually favorable condition for the prophylactic action of the glycol vapor.

An investigation of the effect of triethylene glycol vapor on the respiratory disease incidence in military barracks brought out the fact that, while for the first 3 weeks after new personnel entered the glycolized area the disease rate remained the same as in the control barracks, the second 3 week period showed a 65 percent reduction in acute respiratory infections in the glycol treated barracks. Similar effects were observed in respect to airborne hemolytic streptococci and throat carriers of this microorganism.

I don’t expect the prohibitionist lawmakers to delve this deeply into this subject on their own, but I certainly hope that when presented with this data that they reevaluate their stance on the subject and consider what science has to say. If they don’t, they’re simply basing their judgement off of rhetoric, misinformation, and personal bias and we all know where that gets us.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CERTIFIED MAIL
Dear Registrant:
This is to inform you that the Environmental Protection Agency (hereafter referred to as EPA or the Agency) has completed its review of the available data for the antimicrobials propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol. The Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) was approved in the form of a decision memorandum which summarized the regulatory decision for propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol on September 30, 2004. Based on its review, EPA is now publishing its Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol and its associated human health and environmental risks. A Notice of Availability will be published in the Federal Register announcing the publication of the RED.
The RED and supporting documents for propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol will be available to the public in EPA’s Pesticide Docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0831 at: http://www.regulations.gov.
Please note that the attached RED document pertains only to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol. This RED presents the Agency’s conclusions on the dietary, drinking water, occupational and ecological risks posed by exposure to propylene glycol or dipropylene glycol alone. This document also contains product-specific data that the Agency intends to require in Data Call-Ins (DCIs). Note that DCIs, with all pertinent instructions, will be sent to registrants at a later date. Currently, there are no generic data requirements. Additionally, for product- specific DCIs, the first set of required responses will be due 90 days from the receipt of the DCI letter. The second set of required responses will be due eight months from the receipt of the DCI letter.
As part of the RED, the Agency has determined that propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol are eligible for reregistration. Sections IV and V of this RED document describe product- specific data requirements.

You make a very thought provoking point. Personally, I’ve said from the beginning of the attack on e-cigs that vapers should learn from the history on the war on smokers and not wait to take ownership of the nicotine debate, etc. Don’t let the antis write the script that vapers only respond to. That the vapers should take charge of the script this early on and try to make the antis the ones on defense (answering to how vapers have molded the debate). Now you add another very interesting wrinkle to that.

How to do it?
Take a leaf from TC’s book. Copy their practices. Ignore their claims (re potential non-existent harms, for example). Or rather, say something like, “Well…. I suppose that it is remotely possible that there may be unknown unknowns, but the really important point is THAT THERE IS NO SMOKE!!! It is SMOKE that the Surgeon General says is carcinogenic. THERE IS NONE in vaping. In any case, that is only part of the story. I used to enjoy smoking. Now I enjoy vaping. I am saving money as well”

“They MUST stop saying how much their health has improved after six months of vaping. (That is impossible since, according to tobacco control, the damage of smoking for thirty years will take a decade to correct itself – if you are lucky) Any such benefits are psychosomatic. Oddly, the psychosomatic benefits are actually real benefits! They originate, not only from the effects of nicotine as a relaxing influence on mind and body, but also from contentment induced by the money saved by not buying Government tobacco.”

The health benefit is the first thing vapers notice. How can we NOT talk about it? And it’s not into six months of vaping, it’s almost immediately! And it certainly isn’t psychosomatic! Aaaargh. How could you even suggest such a thing? The way we feel is part of the delight that we can have our cake and eat it. Our doctors and dentists and fitness trainers can SEE the difference in our health. If you want proof of the difference it makes, even to our looks check out Dans cigarettes reviews on YouTube and look at his early videos when reviewing only cigarettes and then look at his new ones where he has mostly switched to vaping. THAT’S not psychosomatic. It’s REAL. So, although I’m an avid fan of yours, you made me cross!

Saying we feel better is a valid pleasure. Now, as a smoker, I found I felt better when I didn’t smoke commercial tobacco. See my video http://youtu.be/dII3PZMEICM. I don’t think you smoke commercial cigarettes! So you already feel better.

I am a fan of Audrey Silk too.

@Audry Silk said “Don’t let the antis write the script that vapers only respond to. That the vapers should take charge of the script this early on and try to make the antis the ones on defense”

I’m not exactly sure how she means – but I thought we were doing that already. The problem, like smokers have, is to be heard. But my observation on the progress of vapers fighting for their rights to vape, is that the antis (experts) that are trollied out to attack nicotine and vaping are looking more and more like fundamentalist idiots and less and less like rational people. As they get exposed as manipulating, lying, unhinged members of society, “smokefree” and “deadly nicotine” is showing up their insanity. I am hoping that might do smokers some good too and the Second Hand Smoke myth might be seen as equally bonkers.

I’m not exactly sure how she means – but I thought we were doing that already. The problem, like smokers have, is to be heard

This is VERY MUCH a point! The BBC did run a report on vaping this morning and appeared defensive on the anti-smokers’ lines. What it failed to mention was the NICOTINE FREE liquids that many vapers use.

I personally don’t trust the BBC anymore when it comes to balanced reports.

But my observation on the progress of vapers fighting for their rights to vape, is that the antis (experts) that are trollied out to attack nicotine and vaping are looking more and more like fundamentalist idiots and less and less like rational people.

In my view vapers should not HAVE to fight for using an e-cig. There is NO “ultra-hyper-dangerous” passive smoke that brought the entertainment industry (pubs, music venues etc.) to it’s knees!!!

I take cigarettes to work; they are a good timer, that’s all. It did baffle me initially to find the vapers joining us smokers outside. They seem shy and “huddling” – just like the smokers DID when the attacks started. By now they know me and they are much more relaxed – I do hope I have given them a few points to think about!!! I happily admit that I do enjoy my e-cig as much as I enjoy my rollie! I just don’t happen to smoke when I use my e-cig, that’s all.

This does remind me of something; vape ban on airplanes. WHY? No passive smoke!!! Even though ventilation on an airplane has been neglected since the smoking ban; you can and will encounter viral illnesses after such a flight; you seat neighbour might just hate the brief encounter of cigarette smell – no such thing with an e-cig, is there?

Been meaning to get back to this one for so long. The antis just keep us all so busy.

Anyway, vapingpoint, what I mean by that (“don’t let the antis write the script…”) is that the e-cig debate is still young, unlike the conventional smoking (or more so, “secondhand smoke”) debate. While it’s still young there’s an opportunity — albeit slipping away rapidly — for the vapers to own talking points. Rather than allowing the anti-smokers to define the debate that then everyone has to respond to, there’s a chance to be the ones that define it and then have them be forced to respond. It’s Offense rather than Defense.

For instance, the most outstanding is “nicotine.” Vaper advocates should be relentless in their writings, interviews, testimony, etc. in pushing one common theme (aka talking point): E.G. “Nicotine is no different than caffeine.” Repeat it and repeat it and repeat it — just like the antis, take a page from their playbook — and vapers become the owners and scriptwriters. Reporters then don’t come to vapers and ask “Don’t you think it’s highly addictive? (because that’s the antis’ talking point), but instead they put the antis under the lamp and turn to them, asking, “How is this worse than drinking coffee?”

I’ve been frustrated with this aspect of it (nicotine) in particular because I don’t see the lesson learned from what smokers have gone through. The responses to the nicotine (“addiction”) argument have been all over the place or weak. Vapers need to pick a line and repeat it ad nauseum.

That’s a point – I have heard and seen it repeated here in UK quite a lot. Recently on the BBC, on a very favourable review of e cigs which rather pleased us generally, it was even repeated “Nicotine is as addictive as coffee, but we don’t ban coffee!” There seems to be a softening here by the media. But, it’s not just vaping, or smoking, (I am a VERY angry smoker!), it’s the cultural practise of “banning” things and all the legislation that puts it in place. I really think we have gone entirely and completely bonkers. Younger people, even my own children! (well one of them, not all of them fortunately,) seem to accept that regulation, regulation, regulation and prohibition is NORMAL. They have no idea of the prison they live in because they didn’t see the landscape before the walls went up. In Britain, people are anal about being “politically correct”. And it is not politically correct to say anything in favour of smoking. Yet anything “racist”, to any other group is exposed and denigrated – except how a quarter of the population here who smoke have been discriminated against. I really have thought long and hard about vaping and vapers and see that our worst problem is not the attitude to us – but the attitude to smokers. I really do think vaping is the new smoking. One day, maybe most people will vape. The fact that smoking is a pleasure which many look back on with nostalgia, shows that it used to be one of life’s GREAT pleasures. In the UK, such pleasure is not acceptable. I wouldn’t be surprised if, before I die (not so long to go now) coffee will not be banned too! They are already working on sugar…..

Audreysilk and vaping point: you both are full time vapers; I am only a part-time vaper (when this smoking ban nonsense is gone I might well become a full time vaper simply because I have more choice – right now vaping allows me to buy tobacco only in countries that do provide for smokers) who cannot point out the obvious often enough: PASSIVE SMOKE.
“Passive-smoke-damage” was the lever for the smoking ban. NOTHING other could have allowed a club of like-minded people to dictate a smoking ban.

THERE IS NO “PASSIVE SMOKE” when vaping.

It needs to be said over and over and over and over again and again and again.

beobrigitte, au contraire, I am not a vaper at all. Not even part time. I’ve used an e-cig on only one occasion so far where I couldn’t otherwise smoke and had no choice but to be where I was. That’s the benefit **I** appreciated when e-cigs first came out.

I have to politely disagree with the talking point, as you wrote it, that you suggest. It legitimizes the fraud that is “secondhand smoke.” Or perhaps you weren’t being exact in your words (I do that at times). True, it can’t be ignored for the REASON you state, but I’d modify it to “There is no smoke.” “Passive” or “secondhand” are the antis’ words and intended to imply harm to others. We only need say there’s no smoke to make the point. Also, it keeps the inadvertent link it conjures up to the debate on e-cig vapor out of the picture. You say “passive” and people start framing it as “passive.”

Audreysilk, the “passive smoke damage” lie enabled the anti-smoking club to lobby the smoking ban.

By addressing this issue we do highlight one other thing as well: WHO FUNDED THIS PASSIVE SMOKE DAMAGE “studies”?
Independent studies (far and few between all tobacco control nonsense) paint an entirely different picture.

“I see what you mean……… How about creating an atmosphere where everyone believes that people use e-cigs for no other reason than ‘SMOKING’ cessation? Thus, e-cigs and SMOKE are linked together. What we can do is go on and on about how ineffective e-cigs are as a tool to stop smoking. Vapers will have to defend themselves by concentrating on how e-cigs have actually helped them to stop smoking.

You do have a point! The anti-smoking zealots do direct the debate to smoking cessation and vapers do reply that they are no longer smoking/can’t stand smoking/that they did try all available NRT available before and that none of them worked etc. etc.etc.

The simplest reason for taking up vaping never gets mentioned: (in my view) E-cigs are a viable replacement for cigarettes, they are just cheaper.
I guess, vapers are too careful to mention this – the anti-smoking zealots are wining and dining politicians as we speak in order to lobby tobacco tax applied to e-liquid.
When I went to Rojeans (vape shop) I did meet some vapers who were surprised that I said that I have no plans to give up smoking! I am just no longer paying tobacco tax in England, that’s all. I still have ca. 750 – 800 gr. tobacco in my cupboard. This will be brought up to 1 kg in a few weeks. When I vape I just don’t smoke. An unintended co-incidence? Whatever, fact is that my tobacco lasts so much longer!!!

No-one asks one vital question: What about the “ultra-dangerous passive smoke” with which the smoking ban was lobbied?
Without it there would never have been a smoking ban!

Now vapers have to get up in arms over a NON-PASSIVE SMOKE producing device facing being banned!!
The reason: It REMINDS people of smoking.
Just in case the anti-smokers do NOT leave their bubble once in a while and do not see the number of people actually smoking, people are reminded of smoking EVERY DAY.

Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

“I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study………………………

Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.

A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!

An MP has called for an investigation into the “improper funding relationship” between Britain’s Department for Health (DH) and an anti-smoking lobby group. Philip Davies MP made the demand after revelations that DH granted money to Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), which the group subsequently used to lobby for tobacco control measures under consideration by the department.

Documentation obtained by Breitbart London shows that ASH – a leading proponent of laws that would mandate standardised packaging of tobacco products as well as other rules intended to curb smoking – applied for and received a section 64 grant from the Department of Health to pursue its ‘Capitalising on Smokefree’ project.

The grant application indicates on Page 4 (below) that UK taxpayer funds would help to achieve the objectives by enabling ASH to engage in “media advocacy and lobbying” and running “training sessions for new DH officials.” It also suggests that grant money would enable ASH to participate in consultations with and advise the Department of Health on tobacco-related policy.

@Harley Rider “Vaping point first you have to believe smoking harmed your health since it cant be proven it harmed your health. Belief seems to be the key factor to all the claims! Not actually via proof!”

Mmm. Well, I smoked for 50years. I am well! My sister has smoked for 55 years. She is well. She’s not interested in vaping. I believe that smoking damage is really hyped. But maybe it affects some people worse than others. Physically, my sister and I used to measure the same on the breath pressure test that the doctors do. But now I have better breath availability when measured (that pisses her off, because she was a singer and usually feels superior to me anyway) and if we are negotiating hills. I remember being a bit puffed on the same hills when I smoked, now I do them un-puffed. But she gets very puffed! I don’t believe that. I experience it.

I have written extensively on the side of smokers. I do, because in my head, I AM a smoker – and an angry smoker at that. I am a smoker that smokes electronically. I had no intention to stop smoking. I just preferred vaping. I see vaping as a substitute for cigarettes, no, I see vaping as the new smoking, just like I use an electric iron instead of the old fashioned hot coals iron. It never occurs to me it’s a cessation tool, or as harm reduction particularly. And having a better breathing capacity now than my sister who scorns my vaping, is the one thing I can be better than her at!

And, a friend who is 92 this July, is also well. She smokes Menthol. She was an hospital operating theatre sister. She told me smokers lungs aren’t black. But anyone who has diseased lungs, smokers or not, have “black” lungs.

I think we haven’t found the cause of the so called “smoking related” illnesses.But I think, in the future a lot of stuff will be blamed on the flavourings in e liquid. And only a few will ever know if it’s the truth or not.

Vapingpoint, I am glad you did raise some myth the anti-smokers get away with.

I can assure you that a smoker’s lung looks just like the one of an anti-smoker. Therefore, if a potential match for a recipient of this lung is found, it is used.
I, too, use vaping not as a smoking cessation tool. I have no plans to give up smoking. I just make my tobacco (not bought in England) last with a very viable alternative to smoking: – vaping.

Haven’t you wondered about these “smoking related illnesses”? They only affect OLD people…..

Vaping gives me virtually the same effect as smoking does – watching “smoke” curling. I am not fuzzed about nicotine content but I am fuzzed about the amount of “smoke” I watch dissipating. It provides pleasure and contentment.

Hello Vapingpoint. Good to hear from you.
Please don’t take offence at my comments. They are not really aimed at perfectly healthy smokers who get a bit out of breath! They are aimed that those who claim something like miracle cures from all ills.
I am seventy four and have smoked since I was nineteen (with a few brakes, the longest being twelve months). Until I got fed up with the weather three years ago, I used to play golf at least three times a week. Golf involves walking about five miles and being on your feet for some five hours continuously. I have no desire whatsoever to run or climb mountains, but I can still do some pretty hard physical work. A few years ago, I relaid my driveway. That involved raising and relaying about fifty 3′ x 2′ paving slabs and laying around four hundred paving bricks. I did it all myself without mechanical aids other than pick and shovel. Since my wife is disabled, I am constantly on the go. Only at night, when she has retired, do I really relax with a glass of red. Do you want some interesting physical exercise? My daughter recently bought herself a new house. Some cables ran under the floorboards. Somehow, she persuaded me to scrawl around on my belly under the floorboards looking where the cables came and went. Her excuse for not doing it herself? “Well, you know what you’re doing, Dad”.

I really do believe that a lot of the ‘miracle cures’ are psychosomatic, but it may also be true that the ailments were psychosomatic! Thirty years of being told that smoking is ruining your health is bound to ruin your health! … If you believe it.